1 – As each people was forced to reform in reaction to the enlightenment (empiricism first then science) they produced counter-enlightenments to persist their mythos. French(Rousseau), German(Kant), Russian, Jewish, Chinese, and now Muslim. Each was influential in their time.

2 – There was nothing novel about the Jewish counter-enlightenment other than as each arrived each improved upon the other counter enlightenments, just as do the spread of all technological innovations – hence why european tv was higher resolution, and they use 220 volts.

3 – We are just exiting the effects of the Jewish counter-enlightenment just as we exited the French (Rousseau and secular authoritarianism), German(or continental):pseudo-rationalism, Russian:Lenin/Trotsky:Authoritariaism, China:Mao. Westerners are unaware of the muslim authors.

4 – The Jewish counter-enlightenment was unique in that it was pseudoscientific: Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, as well as philosophical Leo Strauss, Rand/Rothbard, and could take advantage of american openness.

5- the Jewish counter-enlightenment was no more influential than the French, German, or Russian other than the Jews migrated to the USA and it disproportionately affected the west due to the near universal dominance of America in military, economics, technology in the postwar era.

6 – But the by the 1960’s it was no longer intellectually possible to hold to Marxist economcis and history, Boazian anthropology, Fruedian psychology, or frankfurt school revisionism. And the French (originators of the counter-enlightenments) supplied Postmodernism.

7 – Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism were invented as were rabbinical judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world as a counter-enlightenment by the pastoralists (poor, ignorant, matrilineal), against the great empires (agrarian, metalworking, martial).

8 – Groups do not understand their group evolutionary strategies, any more than they understand their metaphysics (unconscious categories, relations, and values).. We only learn about our own by comparative norms, marital custom, law, religion, myth, literature, and arts.

9 – Groups merely seek to create a new JUSTIFYING MYTHOS that does not change their group evolutionary strategy, nor their mythos, nor their common categories, relations and values – particularly status signaling. Each follows the same process during its counter-enlightenment.

10 – for the simple reason that it is status signals in support of that group evolutionary strategy that each group member seeks to persist – particularly among intellectuals (who have nothing else to offer) vs military and commercial who rely far less on such narratives.

11 – It is rather trivial, (possessed of some understanding of reproductive strategies, economics, archetypes and the limited set of narrative acs) to articulate any group’s evolutionary strategy, and using demographic measurements explain its utility to its distribution.

12 – The persistence of the constraints of medieval cereal crops in the cultures of europe, or the Hajnal Line’s manorialism (the nine nations of north america), or the preservation of values in the horizontal bands of immigrants in the USA (Albion’s Seed), all illustrate it.

13 – Had it not been for the success in immigrating masses of the third world from different class distributions with different group strategies, the Jewish Century would have come and gone with the same relative damage as did the French, German, Russian, and Chinese.

14 – Voting patterns illustrate that people overwhelmingly vote by tribe (race) and marital structure (single motherhood), (see The Myth of the Rational Voter). And without immigration of the third world, science would have rescued us from jewish pseudoscience, as it before.

15 – At present, were it not for immigrant cities, and vast numbers of third world immigrants, the continued advancement of western (anglo) empiricism would have tolerated even the dissolution of the family due to contraceptive technology.

16 – But to engage in (postmodern) denialism is rather … another example of attempts to deny the science. Technological history whether physical, institutional, legal, philosophical, or literary is possible to (relatively easily) disassemble into cause and effect.

17 – one can make excuses for anything. That is the whole point of the study of intellectual history. We don’t invent philosophy first. We discover opportunities for individual, familial, class, and group gain – and make excuses for seizing them with moralizing and mythos.

18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of which is my occupation) are called ‘Fictionalisms’. Pseudoscience requires that one claim he relies on the scientific method, while not employing its constraints. He does not do that.

19 – You on the other hand, criticize him for pseudoscience but you rely not upon science (dimensional falsification through measurement and exposition in operational language), but upon pseudo-rationalism : critique (gossip, shaming, rallying). The very technique he illustrates.

20 – In other words, you illustrate that he is correct, by demonstrating your use that form of argument – critique: (pseudoscientific, psudorational, pseudo historical) ridicule, shaming, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit.

21 – Or, what we call the Female group evolutionary strategy of “Gossip” – the rallying of the many weak to undermine the strong, so that she controls her reproduction, and her offspring have opportunity regardless of their merit.